JUDGMENT 1. When C.M.P. No. 917/91 came up for orders, counsel appearing on either side prayed for disposal of the original petition itself. Accordingly I heard them at length. I am disposing of the original petition. 2. A post of Lecturer in German lay vacant in the College for Women, Thiruvananthapuram. Since there was delay in making regular appointment to the post, the vacancy was reported to the Professional and Technical Employment Exchange, Thiruvananthapuram. That Exchange sponsored petitioner, 5th respondent and Smt. N. K. Sarala. An interview was held of all these three candidates on 21890 for selecting one. 5th respondent who was aged more than 49 years on the date of interview, was selected and appointed as per Ext.R3(a) order dated 22890 for a period of 3 months or till a regular hand advised by the P.S.C. is appointed whichever is earlier. This appointment is under challenge. 3. Eventhough various grounds have been raised in the O.P. including malafides, I do not think it necessary to examine all those contentions except the one based on R.9(a)(i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, hereinafter referred to as the General Rules. 4. Learned counsel representing the 5th respondent raised a contention that for appointment under R.9(a)(i) of the General Rules, qualification regarding age is not to be taken into consideration. The only aspect to be looked in to is whether the candidate possesses the qualification required for the post. This qualification, according to counsel, can take in only educational qualifications and not qualification regarding age. He went on to contend that anyone who possesses the educational qualification below the age of 50 is entitled to be temporarily appointed under R.9(a)(i) of the General Rules. In other words, for temporary appointment under R.9(a)(i) of the General Rules, the age limit prescribed by the Special Rules has no relevance. 5. R.6 of the Special Rules relating to Kerala Collegiate Education Service (published as G.O.(P) No. 357/PD dated 281067 in Kerala Gazette dated 141167) provides the qualifications for the post. Clause (a) of R.6 relates to the "qualification regarding age" and Clause (b) relates to "other qualifications". Under Clause (a) the maximum age limit fixed for the post of Lecturer in the Arts College is 28. That age limit was raised by three years as per Public Services (Raising of upper age limit for appointment) R.1972. Clause (a) of R.6 relates to the "qualification regarding age" and Clause (b) relates to "other qualifications". Under Clause (a) the maximum age limit fixed for the post of Lecturer in the Arts College is 28. That age limit was raised by three years as per Public Services (Raising of upper age limit for appointment) R.1972. Later by Public Services (Raising of upper age limit for appointment) R.1978 it was further raised by five years. Thus the upper age limit for appointment to the post of Lecturer after 1978 is 36 years. But in the case of persons having degrees like Ph.D., D. Phil, D.Sc. and D.Litt., the upper age limit shall be enhanced by three years. So the upper age limit as per the Special Rules relating to Collegiate Education Service is 36 years and in the case of candidates having Research degrees, it is 39 years. 6. As per R.9(a)(i) of the General Rules, when it is necessary in the public interest to fill immediately a vacancy and there would be undue delay in making such appointment in accordance with the General Rule and the Special Rules, the appointing authority may appoint a person otherwise than in accordance with the Rules temporarily. Does it mean that owing to emergency an appointment can be made decors all other provisions in the General Rules and the Special Rules invoking R.9(a)(i)? According to learned counsel representing the petitioner, even for making temporary appointment under R.9(a)(i) of the General Rules, qualifications prescribed under Special Rules will have to be adhered to. The stand taken by the learned counsel representing the 5th respondent is that in making temporary appointments under R.9(a)(i) of the General Rules, educational qualification prescribed for the post need alone be looked into. In other words, according to counsel, for effecting temporary appointment under R.9(a)(i) of the General Rules, qualification regarding age is irrelevant. He has conceded the position that even for effecting temporary appointment under R.9(a)(i) of the General Rules, a candidate aged more than 50 years cannot be appointed. This is stated so because of subrule (3) of R.2 of Public Services (Raising of upper age limit for appointment) Rules, 1978. He has conceded the position that even for effecting temporary appointment under R.9(a)(i) of the General Rules, a candidate aged more than 50 years cannot be appointed. This is stated so because of subrule (3) of R.2 of Public Services (Raising of upper age limit for appointment) Rules, 1978. That provision reads: "Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules or in the General Rules in Part II or the Special Rules in Part III of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958, the maximum upper age limit for direct recruitment to any post shall in no case exceed 50 years." 6. 5th proviso to R.9(a)(i) of the General Rules is in the following terms: "Provided also that no person who does not possess the qualifications, if any, prescribed for the said service, class or category, shall ordinarily be appointed under this clause. Every person who does not possess such qualifications and who has been or is appointed under this clause shall be replaced as soon as possible, by appointing a person possessing such qualifications." As per this, no person who does not possess the qualifications prescribed by the Special Rules, shall ordinarily be appointed invoking the provision contained in R.9(a)(i) of the General Rules. It further goes on to state that every person who does not possess such qualifications as per the Special Rules shall be replaced as soon as possible by appointing a person possessing such qualifications. As stated earlier, the words used in this proviso are "possess the qualifications". This phraseology, according to learned counsel representing the 5th respondent, can take in only educational qualifications and not qualification regarding age. 7. R.10 of the General Rules, which is titled as "qualifications" state that educational or other qualifications required for a post shall be as specified in the Special Rules applicable to the service in which that post is included. This Rule makes it abundantly clear that "qualifications" mentioned in the Special Rules and the General Rules take within its ambit the educational qualification as also other qualifications. The other qualifications should necessarily mean qualification regarding age. This Rule makes it abundantly clear that "qualifications" mentioned in the Special Rules and the General Rules take within its ambit the educational qualification as also other qualifications. The other qualifications should necessarily mean qualification regarding age. First proviso to R.10(c) provides that age limit shall not apply to appointment of a candidate belonging to SC or ST to a post for which Special Rules prescribe a qualification lower than a degree of a recognised University and the candidate possesses an educational qualification which is higher and is otherwise qualified. Explanation to that states that expression educational qualification shall mean technical qualification or general qualification as the case may be. From this it is evident that whenever the rule making authority wanted to refer to educational qualification alone, specific mention of that has been made in the Rules. In the absence of such specific mention, when it is simply stated that the candidate must possess the qualification then it is to be taken that the candidate must satisfy the educational qualification and also other qualification like age as prescribed by the Special Rules. This position is made clear from R.6 of the Special Rules applicable to the service. Clause (a) of that Rule deals with qualification regarding age and Clause (b) "other qualifications" including educational qualifications. Thus even for appointment under R.9(a)(i) of the General Rules "qualifications" have to be strictly complied with. It means, for making appointment under R.9(a)(i) of the General Rules, the qualification regarding age must also be a relevant aspect to be considered. Special Rules relating to the Collegiate Education Service prescribes the upper age limit. That age limit has also to be complied with for making temporary appointment under R.9(a) (i) of the General Rules. If persons possessing such qualifications are available, then they alone can be considered for the temporary appointment. 8. Employment Exchange sponsored 3 candidates, the 5th respondent, petitioner and Smt. N. K. Sarala. Petitioner and Smt. N. K. Sarala are fully qualified to hold the post. The 5th respondent though possesses Ph.D in German was aged above 49 when she was sponsored. 8. Employment Exchange sponsored 3 candidates, the 5th respondent, petitioner and Smt. N. K. Sarala. Petitioner and Smt. N. K. Sarala are fully qualified to hold the post. The 5th respondent though possesses Ph.D in German was aged above 49 when she was sponsored. As per the 5th proviso to R.9(a)(i), when candidates who possess the qualification prescribed by the Special Rules are available, it was not proper on the part of the authorities to ignore those candidates and to prefer the 5th respondent who was over aged and consequently not qualified to hold the post as per the Special Rules. The 5th proviso to R.9 (a)(i) mandates that the person who does not possess such qualification as prescribed by the Special Rule should be replaced as soon as possible by appointing a person possessing such qualifications. When the petitioner and Smt. N. K. Sarala who are fully qualified to hold the post as per the Special Rules were available, it was not proper on the part of the appointing authority to prefer the 5th respondent. 9. In the counter affidavit a peculiar stand has been taken by the Government. For a proper understanding of the wavering mind of the Government, I read the last paragraph of the counter affidavit. "As per special rules for the Collegiate Education Service (G.O.(P) No. 357/PD dated 28101967) the maximum age limit is 38 years for a candidate who is having Ph.D. In other cases the maximum age limit is 35. It is submitted that Government by letter No. 33860/F2/90/H.D. dated 20111990 (Ext. P4) informed the Director of Collegiate Education that provisional (temporary) appointment through the Employment Exchange should be subject to the age limit prescribed in the respective special rules. Subsequently the Director of Collegiate Education by letter No. Estt.F2/45771/90/Coll/Edn. dated 15121990 sought clarification from the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government, Higher Education Department to the effect .that whether the provisional appointment of Indira Krishnamoorthy is in order in view of the fact that she has already attained the age of 49 at the time of appointment. No final order has been issued by the Government in the matter. The aforesaid material are furnished for consideration". Rules are to apply equally to all individuals. No final order has been issued by the Government in the matter. The aforesaid material are furnished for consideration". Rules are to apply equally to all individuals. Why the Director of Collegiate Education sought clarification from Government as to whether the provisional appointment of Indira Krishnamoorthy is in order in view of the fact that she has already attained the age of 49 at the time of appointment? What was the reason for the Director to take up the case of Mrs. Indira Krishnamoorthy with the Government? That too after appointing her for a term of 3 months. What was the reason which prompted the Director to address Government ignoring Ext. P4? The action of the Director, to say the least, appears to be mysterious. Smt. Sarala has first rank, first class M.A. degree in German. Petitioner secured first class in M. A. (German). Both of them satisfied the qualifications prescribed by the Rules. When they were available for appointment, why the Director of Collegiate Education sought the clarification from the Government? I refrain from pursuing the matter further. 10. In pursuance to the order on C.M.P. 917/91 dated 23191 it is submitted by the learned counsel representing the 5th respondent that the services of his client have been terminated with effect from 28191. This fact has been made mention of in paragraph l of the statement filed on behalf of respondents 2 to 4. Thus the appointment of the 5th respondent stands cancelled. Therefore I do not think it necessary to quash Ext.R3(a) order because it is not in existence as on today. No further relief can be granted to the petitioner. The original petition is disposed of in the above terms.